Vaughn v. Stadtmueller

Filing 9

ORDER denying 7 Motion to Appoint Counsel as moot and granting 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed Without Prepayment of the Filing Fee signed by Chief Judge William C Griesbach on 3/7/2017. It is further ordered that this case is DISMISSED with prej udice. The Court certifies an appeal from this matter would not be taken in good faith pursuant to 28 U.S. C. Section 1915(a)(3) unless the plaintiff offers bonafide arguments supporting his appeal. (cc: Treon Vaughn and Kenosha County Sheriff via US Mail) (Griesbach, William)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

TREON D. VAUGHN,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 17-C-164

J. P. STADTMUELLER,
U.S. District Court Judge,
Defendant.

ORDER

Plaintiff Treon Vaughn, who is incarcerated at Kenosha County Detention Center, filed a pro
se complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that his civil rights were violated. This matter comes
before the court on the plaintiff's petition to proceed in forma pauperis.
The plaintiff is required to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. See
28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). If a prisoner does not have the money to pay the filing fee, he or she can
request leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The plaintiff has filed a certified copy of his prison trust
account statement for the two-month period immediately preceding the filing of his complaint. The
plaintiff has been assessed an initial partial filing fee of $33.59 in this action, but he indicates he is
unable to pay that fee and requests that fee be waived. It appears the prisoner will be unable to pay
the initial partial filing fee, and so it is waived. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(4).
The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a
governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The
court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally

"frivolous or malicious," that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek
monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).
A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. Denton
v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 31 (1992); Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Hutchinson
ex rel. Baker v. Spink, 126 F.3d 895, 900 (7th Cir. 1997). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim
as frivolous where it is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual
contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327. “Malicious,” although sometimes treated
as a synonym for “frivolous,” “is more usefully construed as intended to harass.” Lindell v.
McCallum, 352 F.3d 1107, 1109-10 (7th Cir. 2003) (citations omitted).
To state a cognizable claim under the federal notice pleading system, the plaintiff is required
to provide a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that he is entitled to relief[.]” Fed. R.
Civ. P. 8(a)(2). It is not necessary for the plaintiff to plead specific facts and his statement need only
“give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Bell
Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47
(1957)). However, a complaint that offers “labels and conclusions” or “formulaic recitation of the
elements of a cause of action will not do.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). To state a claim, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter,
accepted as true, “that is plausible on its face.” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). “A claim
has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the
reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. (citing Twombly,
550 U.S. at 556). The complaint allegations “must be enough to raise a right to relief above the
speculative level.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (citation omitted).
2

To state a claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that: 1) he was
deprived of a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States; and 2) the deprivation
was visited upon his by a person or persons acting under color of state law. Buchanan-Moore v.
County of Milwaukee, 570 F.3d 824, 827 (7th Cir. 2009) (citing Kramer v. Village of North Fond
du Lac, 384 F.3d 856, 861 (7th Cir. 2004)); see also Gomez v. Toledo, 446 U.S. 635, 640 (1980).
The court is obliged to give the plaintiff’s pro se allegations, “however inartfully pleaded,” a liberal
construction. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S.
97, 106 (1976)).
Vaughn alleges that Judge Stadtmueller improperly dismissed three previous lawsuits:
Vaughn v. Litscher et al., No. 16-1486 (E.D. Wis. 2016); Vaughn v. McCoy et al., No. 16-1499
(E.D. Wis. 2016); and Vaughn v. Wisconsin Supreme Court et al., No. 16-1557 (E.D. Wis. 2016).
Judge Stadtmueller dismissed all three lawsuits following Vaughn’s failure to file his six-month trust
account and subsequent failure to pay the filing fees. While Vaughn may disagree with the order,
Judge Stadtmueller’s ruling was unquestionably made within the scope of his judicial capacity. As
such, he is absolutely immune from suit. See Dawson v. Newman, 419 F.3d 656, 660–61 (7th Cir.
2005). Therefore, this action is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b)(2).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis be and hereby is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED with prejudice pursuant to
28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b)(2) for seeking monetary relief from a defendant who is
immune from such relief.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel is
3

DENIED as moot.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Kenosha County Sheriff or his designee shall collect
from the plaintiff's prison trust account the $350.00 balance of the filing fee by collecting monthly
payments from the plaintiff's prison trust account in an amount equal to 20% of the preceding
month's income credited to the prisoner's trust account and forwarding payments to the clerk of the
court each time the amount in the account exceeds $10 in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2).
The payments shall be clearly identified by the case name and number assigned to this action.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court enter judgment accordingly.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that copies of this order be sent to the Kenosha County
Sheriff.
I FURTHER CERTIFY that any appeal from this matter would not be taken in good faith
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) unless the plaintiff offers bonafide arguments supporting his
appeal.
Dated this 7th

day of March, 2017.
s/ William C. Griesbach
William C. Griesbach, Chief Judge
United States District Court

4